Theists, are you immune to being decieved?

[The Reality Salesman01]

Let me first say that I am enjoying this conversation very much, and I appreciate your willingness to have it. I don't know a lot of people outside of this site willing to talk about these things, and it's coversations like these that make me love this place.

You've got good ideas, and I enjoy this stuff!

Stal's and my point was you can't use "You could be completely delusional" as an argument against theists any more than they can use it against you. Gravity is a fact, given certain assumptions. But even without those assumptions, that I perceive that I experience the effects of gravity is indisputable.

Great! It feels like we're making progress toward a common ground here. I guess I was misunderstood if you thought I was saying that somebody was TOTALLY delusional on all aspects. That's not what I was saying at all. I'm talking about a specific instance. That's why I was using gravity as my example.

I could be completely rational with respect to all other aspects of what correlates with reality, and still be motivated by a delusional belief that would compel me to jump of a building. That belief is a delusion. It wouldn't necessarily follow that my entire perception of reality is skewed in all aspects. Only in the case that I thought I could defy gravity. Does that make sense now?

Actually, saying that God's essential nature is an answer to at least the simpler formulation of the Euthyphro Dilemma. In fact, that's how you solve the dilemma, period.

That was directed at Chad, because I anticipated him using that as a response. Nevertheless, it's a fun conversation to have.

Interesting. Here's my twist on the dilemma: Is something delusional by fact that God deems it to be so? Or does God not recognize things that are delusional in accordance with some other standard that dictates to God the difference between rationality and delusion?


If it is the former, then God's judgement determines what is delusional for arbitrary reasons known only to God, and anything can be determined as rational, including the poisoning of babies. The only criteria would be that God has to deem it as a rational behavior. This belief carries with it some serious implications as you can see from the video.

If it's the latter, we're no closer to understanding the standard by which we should be measuring things, as it is just an extension of God's mystery and just another thing that needs an explanation in addition to what "god" means!

Both leave us wondering whether or not there is a standard by which we humans can measure things as being rational or otherwise.

---

The severity of mental illness is a continuum. TMU the only standard is the individuals ability to function in society. Seems like you want to simplify the issue to justify antireligious bigotry.

---

People can be mistaken without being delusional.

I think you are anticipating it as being antireligious, but if we make sense of something, and it has antireligious implications, would you be inclined to ignore what makes sense on the grounds that it would negatively impact religion?

What makes something a mistake, rather than a delusion?

Perhaps, favoring information that only reinforces the mistake while intentionally ignoring conflicting information that could possibly change one's mind? (being blinded by confirmation bias)

Is the difference between misconstruing reality and holding a belief that is a delusion a willingness to revise one's beliefs in the event that information is presented that shows one's belief to be consistent with that of a delusion?

You seem to be avoiding the conclusion out of fear of the implications it would have on religion.

Information that shows religion to be consistent with the product of a delusion is not a good reason to continue believing that religion is not a product of a religion.

That, in fact, sounds like a delusion.

I don't think I understood your objection.